Points of view on RIS

The RIS framework defines innovation as a cumulative and not-linear systemic process (Fischer, 2001). It results from the formal and informal, voluntary and involuntary interactions among different actors operating in the innovation system.

In an attempt to explore theoretically the organizational and institutional keys of the territorial systemic innovation, Cooke et al. (1997) proposed the concept of Regional Innovation System by taking into account the systemic character of innovation - from innovation systems approach - and the literature evidences of the sub-national dimension of innovation; within this framework, the above authors looked at RIS as a regional learning system that has moved itself from the learning attitude to adapt innovations, originating from elsewhere, to a “tutoring” disposition where there is the capability to innovate de novo. So, taking into account this rationale, these authors

defined a RIS as a <<collective order based on microconstitutional regulation conditioned by trust, reliability, exchange and cooperative interaction>> (P. Cooke et al., 1997).

Similarly, for De Laurentis (2005) RIS is <<a set of institutions, both public and private, which produces pervasive and systemic effects that encourage firms within the region to adopt common norms, expectations, values, attitudes and practices, where a culture of innovation is enforced and a learning process is enhanced>>; accordingly, regional innovation is a learning process that benefits from the proximity of critical actors that can trigger this process.

By highlighting a different point of view, M. Fritsch (2003) looked at RIS as a system that exploit the advantage of the division of innovative labor among agents of innovation (within the system and also between “internal” innovation actors and the outer world); in the Fritsch M. (2003) idea, the interactions on innovation result in efficiency gains because they correspond to the basic hypothesis, in economic science, of gains linked to division of labor.

Again, but with a different point of view, Andersson M. and Karlsson C. (2006) referred to Regional Innovation Systems - where regional is associated to the concept of functional region (read 1.3 section) - as systems that are based on clusters of firms which are surrounded by supporting as well as complementary firms; firms are immersed in an atmosphere of resources that facilitate co-operation, knowledge transfer and knowledge spillover. Within their framework, Andersson M. and Karlsson C. (2006) emphasize the key role of firms clusters in the regional innovation systems, meaning for cluster <<a number of firms (within the same industry) that share the same location in space>>; in their opinion, indeed, clusters facilitate both knowledge transfer and knowledge spillovers as effect of the geographical and relational proximity of the firms; as Andersson M. and Karlsson C. (2006) looked at clusters like the contexts in whom the localized learning processes take place, they believed that clusters should be the core of a suitable regional industrial structure of RISs; at the same time, the above authors highlighted that clusters of firms are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the development of RISs because they stated that RISs have properties, not shared by clusters in general, as well as facilitating resources for cooperation, mutual trust and exchange of knowledge.

A further point of view on RISs rationale has been highlighted by F. Todtling and M. Trippl (2005); these authors, indeed, looked at RISs as key subsystems ("knowledge application and exploitation subsystem", "knowledge generation and diffusion susbsystem" and "policy subsystem"), characterized by intensive interactive relationships (within - and between - these subsystems) and linked by exchanges with

extra-regional actors, that are embedded in a common regional socioeconomic and cultural setting.

By trying to summarize the several RIS definitions, the IRE Working Group defined RIS as a whole of economical, political and institutional relationship in a given geographical area which generates a collective learning process that gives rise to a rapid production, dissemination and use of knowledge (The IRE working group, 2008).

Obviousely, different RIS definitions are the synthesis of different points of view on RIS conceptualizations; indeed, at date, literature shows several conceptual frameworks on the RIS perspective (Asheim, Isaksen, 2002; Doloreux, 2002). In the following, we outline different points of view of someone of the most cited authors on this topic; so, we analyze difference on RIS's key success points, critical relationship, critical actors and conceptual models.

RIS Key success points: there are several ideas on key success points of the RIS perspective; in order to go deeper about this topic, first of all we need of a deepening on the significance of a loose coupling - among finance, learning and productive culture subsystems - that has been underlined in the pioneering work of P. Cooke et al. (1997);

these authors stated - on the financial subsystem - the significance of government’s budgetary availability for improving the region’s capacity to mobilize its innovator agents; moreover, P. Cooke et al. (1997) asserted that financing of telecommunication and communication infrastructures is a very important task for promoting the multiple relations among the several innovation agents of the regional economy. Still, while the above authors emphasized the significance of firm’s financing for innovation projects, they highlighted the presence of a certain degree of uncertainty, between potential lenders and borrowers, due to the lender’s lack of information on innovation project. About the learning subsystem, P. Cooke et al. (1997) asserted the closed link between innovation and learning because <<there can be no change without previous learning>>; on this point, the authors stated that the most important requisite is cooperation among

critical actors of innovation, that is among firms operating in formal or informal networks with other firms in their sector as customers, suppliers or partners, knowledge- centres such as universities and research institutes, contract research organizations and technology-transfer agencies, private business associations, chambers of commerce and public economic development, training and promotion agencies and, finally, government departments. Furthermore, P. Cooke et al. (1997) argued that regional learning systems are present in regions where all the critical actors of innovation are associative, <<meaning there is systemic, i.e., regular, two-way, interchange on matters of importance to innovation and the competitiveness of firms>>. Still, the above authors asserted that it may be spoken of a regional innovation system, instead of a regional learning system, if there is also the financial infrastructure for helping firms to invest the necessary qualities of capital to generate endogenous innovation.

About the productive culture subsystem, the work of P. Cooke et al. (1997) asserted that <<without embeddedness, there is no milieu (Maillat, 1998) within which the associational networks so crucial to interactive innovation can become institutionalized>>; in other words, P. Cooke et al. (1997) argued that - as training system's capacity and workforce's motivation to carry out reconversion are critical factors for adaptation to innovation (Sweeney, 1995) - productive cultural aspects are closely linked to systemic innovation. For productive cultural aspects they referred to culture of cooperation, associative culture, learning culture, experience and ability to carry out or incorporate, institutional changes, coordination and public/private consensus, productive culture, labor relations, cooperation at work, company commitments to social well being, productive specialization, existing interface mechanisms in the scientific - technological - productive - financial field, different types of learning capacity, social valorization of the use of science, university linked to the productive system, non-bureaucratized educational and training system linked to the productive system.

Partially according to key points of P. Cooke et al (1997), Fritsch M., (2003) argued that successful regional innovation systems need of a productive innovation

culture. Similarly, Andersson M. and Karlsson C. (2006) stated the significance of an interactive learning process involving all the agents of innovation.

By highlighting a different viewpoint, F. Todtling and M. Trippl (2005) suggested – as key success point – the embeddedness of the key subsystems ("knowledge application and exploitation subsystem", "knowledge generation and diffusion susbsystem" and "policy subsystem") in a common regional socioeconomic and cultural setting.

By pointing the attention on several original outlooks, De Laurentis (2005) suggested the need of a local innovation culture and a rich innovation infrastructure <<ranging from specialist research institutes, to universities, colleges, and technology transfer agencies>>; furthermore, De Laurentis (2005) argued the significance of systemic linkages between firms and external sources as well as internal ones of knowledge, such as universities, research institutions and other intermediary organizations and institutions; as consequence, this scholar highlighted the important role played by regional government because it offers services and other mechanisms aimed at promoting inter-linkages among all the critical actors. Still, De Laurentis (2005) emphasized the key role played by mobility of skilled workers between firms and academic institutions; indeed, as skilled workers can be considered repository of skills and knowledge, this author argued that the mobility within different type of institutions allows flows and local diffusion of knowledge. <<As workers that embody relevant knowledge move locally, they help diffusing this knowledge through a certain region and industry>> (De Laurentis, 2005); more in depth on this point, De Laurentis (2005) highlighted the key role played by universities as <<key actors in this process of mobility and transfer, moving from a strict role of providers of skills>>. Finally, as labour mobility indirectly promotes the creation of bonds and links between firms and other institutions, De Laurentis (2005) also emphasized that labour mobility <<nurtures networking propensity>>.

RIS Critical relationship: Literature highlighted a general common view on critical relationship of RIS perspective. First of all on this topic, we underline that the seminal paper of P. Cooke et al. (1997) pointed the attention to trust, reliability, exchange and cooperative interaction as critical relationships. Similarly, M. Fritsch (2003) highlighted the significance of cooperative spirit and trust; again, M. Andersson. & C. Karlsson (2006) emphasized the significance of exchange of knowledge, mutual trust and cooperation; still, F. Todtling and M. Trippl (2005) sustained exchange of knowledge, resources and human capital as critical relationships of RIS perspective.

RIS Critical actors and conceptual models: literature has also showed several viewpoints on critical actors and on RISs conceptual models.

According to Fritsch’s conceptual model (fig. 4.2), RISs are characterized from the following actors: a) Public institutions for research, education and other forms of knowledge transfer - such as universities, public research institutions and transfer agencies - with the role to generate, accumulate and distribute information; b) manufacturing establishments with the role to commercialize the available knowledge; c) suppliers of business-oriented services - such as technical consulting services, business consulting services, financial services etc. - with the role to support innovation activities, in public research institutions and manufacturing establishments; d) the regional workforce with the role to supply its qualification and knowledge.

Fig.4.2 – M. Fritsch (2003) conceptual model

A different viewpoint has been proposed by Andersson M. and Karlsson C. (2006); indeed, in their RIS conceptual model (fig.4.3) there are firms clusters belonging to the functional region – with their specific knowledge – which have to be surrounded by supporting firms as well as complementary firms; moreover, there should be, around all the above firms, resources - aimed at facilitating cooperation, knowledge transfer and knowledge spillover - as well as formal rules (national and local), animators, conventions, social capital, physical infrastructures, technological infrastructures, knowledge infrastructures, venture capital and public financial support.

Fig. 4.3: Components of the RIS conceptual model according to Andersson M. and Karlsson C. (2006)

These scholars highlighted that their RIS conceptual model is <<more or less synonymous>> with the “regional networked innovation systems” which have been described in the literature of RIS tassonomy (Asheim and Isaksen, 2002); by referring to regional networked innovation systems, Andersson M. and Karlsson C. (2006) intended to focus the attention on the need of a strong supporting institutional infrastructure surrounding the clusters of firms in the core of the RISs, (i.e. on the need of a strong supporting infrastructure of R&D-institutes and other local organization that are involved in firms’ innovation processes).

With some differences from the above conceptual models, Todtling and M. Trippl (2005) presented their point of view on the RIS, as a modification of the Autio’s conceptual model (1998), through the identification of three subsystems (fig. 4.4) <<embedded in a common regional socioeconomic and cultural setting>>; the first one

is the “knowledge application and exploitation subsystem” that is constituted by industrial companies linked - by horizontal and vertical networking - with customers, contractors, collaborators and competitors; the second one is “knowledge generation and diffusion susbsystem” that is constituted by institutions involved in the production and diffusion of knowledge and skills, such as technology mediating organizations, public research organizations, workforce mediating organizations and educational organizations; the last one is the “policy subsystem” that has the role of shaping regional innovation processes by formulating policy that facilitates interactions and flows of knowledge, resources and human capital between the other two subsystems. Furthermore, F. Todtling and M. Trippl (2005) highlighted the significance of extra- regional contacts, such as national and international policy actors and other innovation systems, for complementing ideas, knowledge and technologies not generated within the region; so, their RIS conceptual model includes an external system of actors interacting with the above three subsystems.

Features Authors

P. Cooke et al. (1997) M. Fritsch (2003)

Rationale

RISs as regional learning systems that – by means of closed links between financial and productive culture subsystems - have moved from the learning attitude to adapt innovations originating from elsewhere to a “tutoring” disposition where there is the capability to innovate de novo.

RISs as systems that emphasizes closed interactions among innovation actors and takes into account the advantage of the division of innovative labor among agents of innovation within the systems and between “internal” innovation actors and the outer world.

Key success

point Loose coupling of three key subsystems: finance, learning and productive culture. A productive innovation culture.

Critical actors

 Firms operating in formal or informal networks with other firms in their sector as customers, suppliers or partners.

 Knowledge-centres such as universities and research institutes.  Contract research organizations and technology-transfer agencies.  Private business associations.

 Chambers of commerce and public economic development.  Training and promotion agencies.

 Government departments.

 Public institutions for research, education and other forms of knowledge transfer - such as universities, public research institutions and transfer agencies.

 Manufacturing establishments.

 Suppliers of business-oriented services - such as technical consulting services, business consulting services, financial services etc.

 The regional workforce.  New innovative firms. Critical

relationship Trust, reliability, exchange and cooperative interaction Cooperative spirit and trust

Features Authors

M. Andersson. & C. Karlsson (2006) F. Todtling and M. Trippl (2005)

Rationale

RISs, where regional is referred to the concept of functional region, as systems that are based on clusters of firms which are surrounded by supporting as well as complementary firms; all of the above firms are immersed in an atmosphere of resources that facilitate co-operation, knowledge transfer and knowledge spillover.

RISs as key subsystems, characterized by intensive interactive relationships (within and between such subsystems) and linked by exchanges with extra-regional actors, that are embedded in a common regional socioeconomic and cultural setting.

Key success

point An interactive learning process.

Embeddedness of the key subsystems in a common regional socioeconomic and cultural setting.

Critical actors

 Firms (firms belonging to the regional clusters, complementary firms and supporting firms),

 Governmental institutions.

 Higher research institutes (universities, application-oriented and non-university research institutes).

 Financial institutions (venture capitalist, institutions of public financial support)

 “Knowledge application and exploitation subsystem” (industrial companies linked - by horizontal and vertical networking - with customers, contractors, collaborators and competitors).

 “Knowledge generation and diffusion susbsystem” (technology mediating organizations, public research organizations, workforce mediating organizations and educational organizations).

 “policy subsystem”.

 Extra-regional actors (national and international policy actors and other innovation systems).

Critical

relationship Exchange of knowledge, mutual trust, cooperation. Exchange (knowledge, resources and human capital).

Literature has also showed several varieties of RISs depending on the differences of industrial base of the region, knowledge base of a territory, propensity toward clustering, entrepreneurship structure and so on (Asheim, Isaksen, 2002; Asheim, Coenen, 2005; Doloreux, Parto, 2005; Tödtling, Trippl, 2005).

The abovementioned variety is showed in several empirical RIS configurations (Figure 4.5).

Fig. 4.5: RIS configurations from OECD (2011), “Regions and innovation policy”, OECD publishing

The “old” theoretical debate - on what a RIS should be - has not been resolved yet; Indeed, according to Doloreux D. and Parto S. (2004), the “diverse variety of regional innovation system types creates a significant degree of ‘definition confusion’ and empirical validation issues, making it difficult for researchers and policy makers to foresee what a RIS is, or should be.

As emphasized in 1.4 section - and as emerged from this section - the approach <<suffers from the absence of an unified conceptual framework from which a universal, albeit very broad, model may emerge to guide research and policy” (Doloreux D. and Parto S., 2004).